Search: section 68

2 results for “section 68”+ Section 206Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka26 Chennai24 Delhi2

Key Topics

Section 90(2)4 Section 206A4 Section 200A2 Section 40A(2)(b)2

SPAN AIR PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO TDS WARD 51, GHAZIABAD

The Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4434/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. M. R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 200ASection 206ASection 90(2)

206A of the Act. The assessee had challenged the same before ld CIT(A) primarily submitting that the amounts are paid to the non-resident of those countries with whom DTAA agreement were signed by India at the lower rate as prescribed in the relevant Articles of DTAA being favourable in comparison to the Act were liable to be applied

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VISHNU APARTMENTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5828/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Vs Vishnu Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-7, Sheela Bhawan, New Delhi. 8, Motilal Atal Road, Jaipur. Pan: Aaacv6397E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri I.P. Bansal & Shri Vivek Bansal, Advocates; & Ms Suman Sapra, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14Th August, 2014 Of The Cit(A)-1, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under:- “1. The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Correct In Law & Facts. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.47,07,37,143/- Made By The Ao On Account Of ‘Sham Transaction Of Revenue Sharing.’ 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Any/All The Ground Of Appeal Before Or During The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT, DR

Section 269SSection 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

68% of the fund requirement for the project. The entire project generated revenue of about Rs.135 crore, out of which Rs.57 crore was shared as revenue by the appellant with MGFD out of sale proceeds of Rs.95 crore realized from the hotel portion. The revenue shared was, as per agreement, 60% of the sale proceed of hotel but only